Meeting of the Hawke's Bay Regional Council

 

 

Date:                 Wednesday 18 April 2012

Time:                9.00am

Venue:

Council Chamber Hawke's Bay Regional Council 159 Dalton Street NAPIER

 

Agenda

Item       Subject                                                                                                                  Page

 

1.         Welcome/Prayer/Apologies/Notices

2.         Conflict of Interest Declarations  

3.         Confirmation of Minutes of the Regional Council Meeting held on 21 March 2012

4.         Matters Arising from Minutes of the  Regional Council Meeting held on 21 March 2012

5.         Action Items from Previous Regional Council Meetings

6.         Call for General Business Items

Decision Items

7.         Affixing of Common Seal

8.         RMA Delegations

9.         Councillor Remuneration 2012/13

10.       Port of Napier Limited Valuation

11.       Hawke's Bay Wine Country - Dissolution

12.       Leasehold Land Freeholding Progress

Information or Performance Monitoring

13.       April 2012 Work Plan - Looking Forward

14.       Hawke's Bay Tourism Nine Monthly Update (11.00 am)

15.       Annual Plan 2011-12 Progress Report for Nine Months ending 31 March, Including Reforecasting

16.       Chairman's Monthly Report (to be tabled)

17.       General Business

Decision Items (Public Excluded)

18.       Confirmation of Public Excluded Meeting held on 21 March 2012

19.       Matters Arising from Public Excluded Minutes of Meeting held on 21 March 2012

20.       Public Excluded Chairman's Report

 

Wednesday 18 April 2012

SUBJECT: Action Items from Previous Regional Council Meetings

 

Introduction

1.      Attachment 1 lists items raised at previous meetings that require actions or follow-ups. All action items indicate who is responsible for each action, when it is expected to be completed and a brief status comment. Once the items have been completed and reported to Council they will be removed from the list.

 

Decision Making Process

2.      Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that as this report is for information only and no decision is required in terms of the Local Government Act’s provisions, the decision making procedures set out in the Act do not apply.

 

Recommendation 1.      That Council receives the report “Action Items from Previous Meetings”.

 

 

Andrew Newman Chief Executive

 

Attachment/s

1View

Actions from Previous Council Meetings

  

Actions from Previous Council Meetings

Attachment 1

 

Actions from Regional Council Meetings

 

 

	Agenda Item	Action	Person Responsible	Due Date	Status Comment
1.	Ruataniwha Plains Water Storage Project	Regular updates on milestones achieved	AN/ GH	ongoing
2.	Adoption of the audited draft LTP for consultation	Financial reporting – design a report which reports and projects Internal time, Consultants, Contractors, Contributions, and Legal costs per Group of Activity	JP/PD	May 2012	The current LTP/Annual Plan financial model is not designed to collate the required information beyond the first three years of the LTP. It is proposed to produce a report, in the form of a note to the financial statements, disclosing the information required for consideration at the May Regional Council meeting.

 

 

Wednesday 18 April 2012

SUBJECT: Affixing of Common Seal

 

Reason for Report

1.       The Common Seal of the Council has been affixed to the following documents and signed by the Chairman or Deputy Chairman and Chief Executive or a Group Manager.

		Seal No.	Date
1.1	Leasehold Land Sales 1.1.1     Lot 108           DP 2172           CT  P3/1244 -     Transfer   1.1.2     Lot 91           DP 12692           CT  E1/63 -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase       (discount 17.5% resides at property) -     Transfer   1.1.3     Lot 94           DP 13039           CT  E2/1241 -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase       (discount 17.5% resides at property)   1.1.4     Lot 29           DP 12309           CT  D2/503 -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase       (discount 17.5% resides at property)   1.1.5     Lot 17           DP 12309           CT  D2/498 -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase       (discount 17.5% resides at property) -     Transfer   1.1.6     Lot 455           DP 11559           CT  C1/1463 -     Transfer   1.1.7     Lot 88           DP 13696           CT  F2/1337 -     Transfer   1.1.8     Lot 129           DP 2172           CT  55/190 -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase       (discount 17.5% resides at property)           1.1.9     Lot 337           DP 11329           CT  B3/1312 -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase       (discount 17.5% resides at property)   1.1.10  Lot 188           DP 11149           CT  B1/1217 -     Transfer   1.1.11  Lot 167           DP 13096           CT  E3/537 -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase       (discount 17.5% resides at property)   1.1.12  Lot 70           DP 9684           CT  B3/1015 -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase       (discount 17.5% resides at property)   1.1.13  Lot 9           DP 11689           CT  C3/13 -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase       (discount 17.5% resides at property) -     Transfer   1.1.14  Lot 181           DP 11149           CT  B1/1215 -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase       (discount 17.5% resides at property) -     Transfer   1.1.15  Lot 78           DP 13695           CT  F2/1325 -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase       (discount 17.5% resides at property)   1.1.16  Lot 91           DP 13380           CT  F1/612 -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase       (discount 17.5% resides at property)   1.1.17  Lot 232           DP 10728           CT  C1/301 -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase       (discount 10% landlord)   1.1.18  Lot 485           DP 2451           CT  55/117 -     Transfer   1.1.19  Lot 110           DP 12692           CT  E1/69 -     Transfer     1.1.20  Lot 83           DP 7201           CT  B4/807 -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase       (discount 10% landlord)     1.1.21  Lot 187           DP 7756           CT  C2/450 -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase       (discount 17.5% resides at property)	3260         3261   3262         3263           3264           3265   3272         3267         3268         3269                   3270           3271         3273           3274           3276   3277         3278   3279         3280           3281           3282           3283         3284           3285             3286	21 March 2012         21 March 2012   21 March 2012         21 March 2012           22 March 2012           26 March 2012   3 April 2012         26 March 2012         29 March 2012         29 March 2012                   30 March 2012           30 March 2012         3 April 2012           3 April 2012           3 April 2012   3 April 2012         3 April 2012   3 April 2012         5 April 2012           5 April 2012           5 April 2012           5 April 2012         10 April 2012           10 April 2012             12 April 2012
1.2	Staff Warrants 1.2.1   N. Berry           (Delegations under Resource Management Act 1991; Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941; Land Drainage Act 1908 and Civil Defence Act 1983 (s.60-64); Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (s.86-91) and Local Government Act 2002 (s.174)   1.2.2.  L. Christison              (Delegations under Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941; Resource Management Act 1991; Land Drainage Act 1908; Civil Defence Act 1983 (s.60-64); Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (s.86-91)and Local Government Act 2002 (s.174))   1.2.3    I Maxwell              (Delegations under Resource Management Act 1991; Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941; Land Drainage Act 1908 and Civil Defence Act 1983 (s.60-64); Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (s.86-91) and Local Government Act 2002 (s.174)	3266                 3275                 3287	26 March 2012                 02 April 2012                 12 April 2012

 

Decision Making Process

2.       Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the provisions of Sections 77, 78, 80, 81 and 82 of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within these sections of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

2.1   Sections 97 and 88 of the Act do not apply;

2.2   Council can exercise its discretion under Section 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Act and make a decision on this issue without conferring directly with the community or others due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided;

2.3   That the decision to apply the Common Seal reflects previous policy or other decisions of Council which (where applicable) will have been subject to the Act’s required decision making process.

 

Recommendations That Council: 1.      Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted policy on significance and that Council can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided. 2.      Confirms the action to affix the Common Seal.

 

 

Diane Wisely Executive Assistant

Andrew Newman Chief Executive

 

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

Wednesday 18 April 2012

SUBJECT: RMA Delegations

 

Reason for Report

1.      This report provides a review and refresh of the delegations that are required for the administration and processing of consenting functions under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). This review also covers the provisions for authorising people to carry out functions and powers as an enforcement officer.

2.      Council is requested to authorise the delegation of consenting powers, functions and duties to officers as set out in Attachment 1.

Background

3.      The delegation of Council’s powers, duties and functions is an important process to allow the efficient administration of the regulatory side of Council’s business.

4.      There have been recent changes to both the RMA and staffing in the Resource Management Group (creation of new positions and changes of titles) that necessitate a review of the delegations. Generally the delegations have remained current but it is now timely to review and update these.

5.      Changes to the administration area of the Resource Management Group means functions can be delegated to the new Manager of Client Services. Also the Consents Section has recently established the position of Principal Consents Officer.

6.      In reviewing these delegations it is recommended that all previous RMA consent administration and processing delegations, and also enforcement delegations to officers are revoked.

Discussion

7.      Under s34A(1) of the RMA a Council can delegate functions, powers and duties to officers. Two matters cannot be further delegated. These are:

(a) the power of approval of a proposed policy statement or plan under clause 17 of Schedule 1; and

(b) this power of delegation.

8.      This means functions, powers and duties set out in the RMA cannot be further delegated by the Chief Executive (CE); rather the delegation must come from Council directly to officers.

9.      Further delegating was an option prior to amendments to the RMA in 2003.  Delegation through the CE has not been the case in recent years but the way current delegations are structured often means that the CE does not have the authority to exercise powers, functions and duties delegated to other officers. This may become an issue if there is a desire or a need for the CE to exercise his or her judgement on any of these functions, powers or duties.

10.    Processes from receiving and processing consents leading up to hearings are generally delegated to officers.

11.    Decisions to grant non-notified consents and to grant notified applications which do not need to be heard are delegated to officers, however the power to decline an application is, in almost all cases, delegated to the Hearing Panel.

12.    Decisions to delegate hearing functions to the Hearings Committee were made in March 2009.  Other than the proposal to delegate some powers, functions or duties pursuant to s125 of the RMA (see paragraph 15), these are not affected by this review.

13.    The proposed delegations are shown in Attachment 1 to this report.

 

Lapsing of consents

14.    Papers were presented to Council in November 2009 and July 2010 on delegations for extending the lapse dates of resource consents. These were focussed on water permits and the allocation status of surface and groundwater allocation zones. As a result of the 2010 paper Council determined that all decisions on whether consents had been given effect to and whether to extend a lapse date were to be considered by the Hearings Committee.

15.    It is recommended that the decisions for setting lapse dates, assessing whether a consent has been given effect to and extending lapse dates under s125 for resource consents that have been non-notified, be delegated to the officers listed in the delegation register (see attachment 1). This is to apply, except where the resource consent is to take and/or use water from a water source that is fully or over allocated (determined in accordance with Policy 74 Table 9, of the proposed NES on Ecological Flows and Water Levels, or identified as a sensitive groundwater zone). The determination of whether a consent has been given effect to and lapse date extensions for these exceptions and for activities which were originally notified would remain with the Hearings Committee.

16.    These changes are included in the Delegations Register attached as Attachment 1 – see s125.

Gravel extraction

17.    The issuing of landuse permits to take gravel from the beds of rivers anywhere in the region has been carried out by the Asset Management Group since the RMA was introduced. Objectives 28 to 30 of the Regional Policy Statement and Policies 50 to 54 provide direction for this. If the previous delegations are to be revoked then authority needs to be given to the appropriate positions within the Asset Management Group for this activity to continue to be administered by them.

18.    Policies 50 to 53 identify procedures and steps for determining gravel availability on an annual basis. RRMP rule 73 (permitted activity) and rule 74 (restricted discretionary activity) provide for gravel extraction.  The decision-making criteria in Policy 53 provides guidance for decision makers and indicates that the extraction of gravel should be carried out in a manner that causes no more than minor environmental effects and that does not compromise the integrity of any flood control assets or river protection works. It is generally administered to maintain flood carrying capacity by directing applicants to preferred gravel removal areas within the river systems.

19.    In this review delegations are provided to the Group Manager Asset Management Group, the Manager of Engineering, the Team Leader of Operations and the Operations Engineering Officer.

20.    These delegations are limited to the receiving and processing of applications for gravel extraction, the decision to process as a non-notified consent and the consenting of applications that are non-notified. Consequently if an activity is to be notified the process will be brought into the Consents section, where delegations lie for proceeding with notification of resource consent applications and hearings.

Enforcement Officers

21.    The power to authorise officers to carry out all or any functions and powers as an enforcement officer under s 38 RMA may be delegated to the CE under s34A(1) RMA. This has been the practice to date and is recorded in this updated Delegation Register.

Financial and Resource Implications

22.    There are no financial implications arising from this paper.

23.    The delegations are intended to assist Council to be efficient and effective in the administration and processing of resource consents. Key delegations that were retained by the Council and the Hearings Committee remain unchanged.

Decision Making Process

24.    Council is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act).  Staff have assessed the requirements contained in Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

24.1.   The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

24.2.   The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

24.3.   The decision does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.

24.4.   The persons affected by this decision are all persons subject to Resource Management Act decision making processes as outlined in this paper.

24.5.   Options that have been considered include that Council retains all powers, duties and functions or that the delegation stay only at the CE level.

24.6.   The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

24.7.   Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

 

Recommendations That Council: 1.    Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted policy on significance and that Council can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided. 2.    Pursuant to section 34A (1) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council delegates its powers, duties and functions to the officers’ positions listed in attachment one. 3.    Revokes all previous delegations to officers of powers, duties or functions under sections 22, 36, 37, 37A, 38,1B, 41C, 42, 42A, 87, 88, 91, 92, 92A, 95, 95A, 95B, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 104A, 104B, 104C, 104D, 104F, 105, 107, 108, 114, 124, 124A, 124B, 124C, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133A, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 138A, 139, 139A, 165B, 245, 289, 357A, 357B, 357C, 357D of the Resource Management Act 1991.

 

 

Malcolm Miller Manager Consents

Iain Maxwell Group Manager Resource Management

 

Attachment/s

1View

Resource Management Act Delegations

  

Resource Management Act Delegations

Attachment 1

 

Delegation Register – Resource Management Act 1991 and its Amendments

Resource Consent Processes

 

Authorisation

Under the provisions of section 34A(1)of the Resource Management Act 1991 the persons specified in this manual are delegated the powers, duties and functions specified below.

By Council resolution April 18 2012

 

 

 

Abbreviations

·      CE            –        Chief Executive

·      GMRM      –        Group Manager – Resource Management

·      MC            –        Manager Consents

·      PCO                   –        Principal Consent Officer

·      SCO                   –        Senior Consents Officer

·      CO            –        Consents Officer

·      MCO                   –        Manager Client Services

·      CAdm       –        Consents Administration

·      CAdv                 –        Consents Advisor

·      GMAM      -         Group Manager Assets Management Group (only for rule 74 RRMP and rule 59 RCEP matters)

·      ME            -         Manager Engineering (only for rule 74 RRMP and rule 59 RCEP matters)

·      TLE          -         Team Leader Operations (only for rule 74 RRMP and rule 59 RCEP matters)

·      OEO                   -         Operations Engineering Officer (only for rule 74 RRMP and rule 59 RCEP matters)

 

Administrative Charges

Section	Description of function ,power, or duty	Delegated To
		CE	GMRM	MC	PCO	SCO	CO	MCS	CAdm	CAdv
36(3)	Require payment of additional charges to those fixed to enable recovery of actual and reasonable costs	X	X	X	X			X	X	X
36(3A)	Provide estimate of any additional charges likely to be imposed where requested by a person liable to pay an additional charge under s 36(3)	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
36(5)	Remit whole or part of a charge	X	X	X	X			X	X	X
36(7)	Decision as to whether or not to perform the action to which a charge relates until the charge has been paid in full.	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X

Waivers and Extension of Time Limits

Section	Description of function power or duty	Delegated To
		CE	GMRM	MC	PCO	SCO	CO	MCS	CAdm	CAdv
37 & 37A	Extend a time period with applicants approval, and waive a failure to comply with a requirement	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
37 & 37A	Extend a time period under special circumstances, and waive a failure to comply with a requirement	X	X	X

 

 

 

 

Enforcement Officers

Section	Description of function power or duty	Delegated To
		CE	GMRM	MC	PCO	SCO	CO	MCS	CAdm	CAdv
38	Authorise persons to carry out all or any of the functions and powers as an enforcement officer under this act.	X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reports

 

Section	Description of function, power, or duty	Delegated To
		CE	GMRM	MC	PCO	SCO	CO	MCS	CAdm	CAdv
42(1),(2) & (3)	Make order for protection of sensitive information	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
42A	Obtain report from a Council employee on any matter described in s 39(1)	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
42A	Obtain a report from a person who is not a Council employee on any matter described in s39(1)	X	X	X	X	X	X
42A(5)	Waive compliance with s42A(3) or (4)(b)	X	X	X	X

 

Application for Resource Consent

Section

Description of function, power, or duty

Delegated To

CE

GMRM

MC

PCO

SCO

CO

MCS

CAdm

CAdv

GMAM

ME

TLO

OEO

87E(5) or (6)

Decide on a request that an application(s) be directly referred to The Environment Court, in circumstances where the application(s) would eventually be appealed.

Elected Council

87F(3) – (5)

Prepare a report on the direct referral application and provide copies

X

X

X

X

X

X

88(3)

Determine that an application for resource consent is incomplete and provide reasons for that determination.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

91(1) & (2)

Deferral pending application for additional consents and notification to applicant of deferral.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

92(1) & 92(3)(a)

Request further information be provided by the applicant and notify applicant of reasons for request.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

92(2) &92(3)(b)

Commission a Council employee to prepare a report on any matter relating to an application and notify applicant of reasons for wanting to commission a report.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

92(2) & 92(3)(b)

Commission a person who is not a Council employee to prepare a report on any matter relating to an application and notify applicant of reasons for wanting to commission a report.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

92A(2)

Set time limit for applicants to provide information.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Notification/Non-Notification

Section

Description of function, power, or duty

Delegated To

CE

GMRM

MC

PCO

SCO

CO

MCS

CAdm

CAdv

GMAM

ME

TLO

OEO

95(a) and 95A(1), 95A(2)(a), 95A(4)

Decide to publicly or limited notify an application or not to notify an application

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

95(b) 95C

Arrange notification of an application

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

95B(1)

Determine who may be adversely affected by the activity

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

95D

Decide if adverse effects likely to be more than minor.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

95E

Decide if person is affected person

X

X

X

X

X

95F

Decide if a protected customary rights group is an affected protected customary rights group.

X

X

X

X

X

 

Pre-hearing Meetings and Mediation

 

Section	Description of function, power, or duty	Delegated To
		CE	GMRM	MC	PCO	SCO	CO	MCS	CAdm	CAdv
99(1) to (3)	Arrange pre-hearing meetings for the purpose of clarifying, mediating or facilitating resolution of any matter or issue.	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
99(4)	The authority to decide if a person who is a member, delegate or staff who have the power to make a decision on an application may attend and participate in a pre-hearing meeting.	X	X	X	X	X			X
99(8)	Decline to process an application or consider a submission.	X	X	X
99A(1) & (2)	Refer to mediation a person who has made an application for a resource consent and some or all of the persons who have made submissions on the application.	X	X	X

 

Hearings

 

Section	Description of function, power, or duty	Delegated To
		CE	GMRM	MC	PCO	SCO	CO	MCS	CAdm	CAdv
100	Determine whether a hearing is necessary.	X	X	X	X				X
101	Set hearing dates and give notice	X	X	X	X				X
102	Determine whether a joint hearing is necessary and when a joint hearing is necessary to take steps in relation to notification and other matters.	X	X	X	X
103	Determine whether a combined hearing in respect of 2 or more applications is necessary	X	X	X	X

 

Decisions

Section

Description of function, power, or duty

Delegated To

CE

GMRM

MC

PCO

SCO

CO

MCS

CAdm

CAdv

GMAM

ME

TLO

OEO

104,104A, 104B 104C 104D, 104E & 105

Consider and determine non notified applications for resource consents.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

104F

Implement national environmental standards to control the effects on climate change of the discharge into air of greenhouse gases.

X

X

X

X

X

107

Consider and determine non-notified  discharge or coastal permits subject to criteria.

X

X

X

X

X

108

Grant consents on any condition pursuant to s 108

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

104, 104A 104B 104C 104D and 105

Determine publicly notified applications and limited notified applications for resource consents, when no submissions are received, or when submissions have been withdrawn or where submitters do not wish to be heard.

X

X

 

Notification of Decision

Section

Description of function, power, or duty

Delegated To

CE

GMRM

MC

PCO

SCO

CO

MCS

CAdm

CAdv

GMAM

ME

TLO

OEO

114

Serve notice of the decision and determine any other persons and authorities to be served

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

116(1A)

Determine the commencement date of consent if not the date of notification of decision under s 114

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

Duration of Consent

Section	Description of function, power, or duty	Delegated To
		CE	GMRM	MC	PCO	SCO	CO	MCS	CAdm	CAdv
124(1)	Check whether the circumstances in s 124(1) have been met thereby allowing the applicant to continue to operate pending determination of an application for a replacement consent	X	X	X	X
124(2)	Permit or refuse an applicant to continue to operate pending determination of an application for a replacement consent	X	X	X	X
124A	Determination of whether sections 124B and 124C apply	X	X	X	X
124B	Determination of application in accordance with s 124B	X	X	X	X
124C	Steps pursuant to s 124C including holding an application, notification to holder of existing consent and processing and determination of application	X	X	X	X	X
125	Set a lapse date when determining non-notified applications, determine that a consent has been given effect to and extend (on application) the time period within which a consent must be exercised before it lapses. Except for water takes in catchments which are fully allocated or are identified as sensitive groundwater zones.	X	X	X	X	X
126(1) and (2)	Cancellation of consent not exercised for the preceding 5 years and power to revoke notice of cancellation of consent	X	X	X
127	Determine whether an application for a change or cancellation of a condition of consent shall be notified	X	X	X	X

 

Review of Consent Conditions

 

Section	Description of function, power, or duty	Delegated To
		CE	GMRM	MC	PCO	SCO	CO	MCS	CAdm	CAdv
128(1)(a) & 129	Serve notice of a review of consent as specified in consent.	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
128(1)(b) and 128 (1) (ba), 1(c)  & 129	Serve notice of review of consent in line with Regional Plan rules, if a relevant national environmental standard has been made or if information made available for the application contained inaccuracies which materially influenced the decision and effects of the exercise of the consent are such that it is necessary to apply more appropriate conditions.	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
130	Determine whether to dispense with notification of notice of review	X	X	X	X
131-132	Consider and decide on review of non-notified consent conditions.	X	X	X	X	X
133A	Correct minor mistakes or defects in a resource consent.	X	X	X	X	X

 

Transfer of Consents

Section	Description of function, power, or duty	Delegated To
		CE	GMRM	MC	PCO	SCO	CO	MCS	CAdm	CAdv
134	Receive on behalf of Council written notice of transfer of a land use consent.							X	X	X
135	Receive on behalf of Council written notice of transfer of a coastal permit.							X	X	X
136 (1), (2)(a) and (2)(b)(i)	Receive on behalf of Council written notice of transfer of a water permit.							X	X	X
136 (4) and (5)	Approve or decline the transfer of a water permit to another site if change is non-notified.	X	X	X	X
	If notified or limited notified applications for resource consents, when no submissions are received, or when submissions have been withdrawn or where submitters do not wish to be heard.	X	X
137	Receive on behalf of Council written notice of transfer of a discharge permit.							X	X	X
138	Accept the surrender or part surrender of a resource consent or refuse surrender of part of a resource consent.	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
138A	Consider special provisions relating to coastal permits for dumping and incineration.	X	X	X	X

 

Certificate of Compliance or Existing Use

 

Section	Description of function, power, or duty	Delegated To
		CE	GMRM	MC	PCO	SCO	CO	MCS	CAdm	CAdv
139	Grant certificate of compliance.	X	X	X	X	X
139A	Issue existing use certificate	X	X	X

 

Reclamations

 

Section	Description of function, power, or duty	Delegated To
		CE	GMRM	MC	PCO	SCO	CO	MCS	CAdm	CAdv
245	Give approval to a plan of survey of a reclamation subject to criteria in the Act.	X	X	X

 

Rights of Objection

 

Section	Description of function, power, or duty	Delegated To
		CE	GMRM	MC	PCO	SCO	CO	MCS	CAdm	CAdv
357A	Consider and make decisions on objections where: • the objection is upheld; or • the outcome is agreed with the objector.	X	X	X	X
357B	Consider and make a decision on objections where the additional costs that is the subject of the objection is less than $10,000 and where agreement is reached with the objector.	X	X	X
S357C(3)(b)	Give appropriate notice to parties.	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
S357C(4)(b)	Give appropriate notice of objection hearing to parties.	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
S357D(2)	Give appropriate notice of decision to parties.	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Resource Management (measurement and reporting of water takes) Regulations 2010

Section	Description of function, power, or duty	Delegated To
		CE	GMRM	MC	PCO	SCO	CO	MCS	CAdm	CAdv
9	Approval to measure water taken each week (instead of each day)	X	X	X	X	X
10	Approval to use device or system installed near (instead of at) location from which water taken	X	X	X	X	X
11	Revoke approval of 9 or 10	X	X	X	X	X

 

Wednesday 18 April 2012

SUBJECT: Councillor Remuneration 2012/13

 

Reason for Report

1.      The Remuneration Authority (Authority) wrote to Council on 15 March 2012 providing the residual pool and Chairman’s salary determination for the 2012/13 financial year.  This paper provides a number of options to be considered so that a recommendation can be made to the Authority for the distribution of the net pool amongst elected members of this Council.

Remuneration

2.      The Authority has advised the following indicative pool for remuneration to cover the 2012/13 financial year.

	2012/13 ($)	2011/12 ($)	Variation ($)	Variation (%)
Chairman’s Salary	109,500	109,500	Nil	0.00
Deduction for use of Vehicle	(3,785)	(3,785)	Nil	0.00
Chairman’s Salary after Deduction	105,715	105,715	Nil	0.00
Councillor Remuneration	389,144	388,038	1,106	0.285
Total	494,859	493,753	1,106	0.224

 

3.      Councillors should note that the Authority also states in its letter that it is planning to undertake some broader work in the area of council remuneration during the year with a view to any changes being implemented in the 2013/14 financial year.  The Authority intends to engage with Local Government New Zealand and councils to seek their views.

4.      This paper sets out a number of scenarios for Councillors to consider and decide on one of the scenarios to recommend to the Authority.  Each of the scenarios assumes the following.

4.1.   That the differential between a Councillor without committee chair responsibilities and a Councillor with committee chair responsibilities is $4,500 as decided by Council on 27 April 2011.

4.2.   As Council has previously resolved not to pay meeting fees for the first six plan hearing days in any year, the scenarios assume that no provision for meeting fees for plan hearing meetings is required as planning Staff have estimated that there will be only five meeting days for the 2012/13 financial year.  Their analysis is set out below.

Topic	Hearing Days	Total Days
RPS Change 4 (Managing the Built Environment)	5	5
TOTAL	5	5

 

 

5.      Set out in Attachment 1 are three scenarios, which are presented for Council’s consideration. The broad assumptions for each scenario are:

5.1.   Scenario 1: Four Committee Chairs or Deputy Chairman

5.2.   Scenario 2: Five Committee Chairs or Deputy Chairman (Current Situation)

5.3.   Scenario 3: Six Committee Chairs or Deputy Chairman.

Policy on Elected Members’ Allowance and Expenses

6.      Council considered and adopted a revised Elected Members’ Allowances and Expenses Policy on 27 July 2011, which complies with the Authority’s final determination for the 2011/12 financial year.  This paper proposes no amendment to that policy.

Remuneration of Maori Representatives

7.      On 27 April 2011, Council resolved that the Chairman of the Maori Committee would be paid a salary equivalent to that paid to a Councillor without committee chair responsibilities and that no meeting allowances would be paid.  This paper proposes that this relativity be maintained for the 2012/13 financial year.

8.      Also on 27 April 2011, Council resolved that the meeting fee payable to members of the Maori Committee be increased from $230 per day to $265 per day.  Members of this committee are also paid travel allowance at $0.74 per kilometre.  This paper proposes that no changes be made to these allowances.

9.      At the same meeting, Council resolved that tangata whenua appointed members (excluding the Chair) of the Maori Committee who are appointed to plan hearings that are not related to resource consent hearings be remunerated at the hourly rates set out in the applicable Local Government Elected Members Determination for all hearing time, as defined in that determination.  This paper proposes that payment of this allowance be continued for the 2012/13 financial year.

Decision Making Process

10.    Council is required to respond to the Remuneration Authority as a requirement of statute and is required to determine for themselves the appropriate distribution of the net remuneration pool amongst elected members of Council.

 

Recommendations That Council: 1.      Resolves the level of payments to be made to Councillors with and without Chair responsibilities for the 2012/13 financial year, consistent with the remuneration pool as advised by the Remuneration Authority covering that period, and recommend to the Remuneration Authority that these payment levels be included in the determination for the 2012/13 financial year. 2.      Replaces (subject to the approval of the Remuneration Authority) Section 1.4.2 (Remuneration) of Council’s Policy Handbook with the following from 1 July 2012, and with elected members only ever being eligible for one salary with salary being the highest applicable from the following table.                 Role   Comment Salary Chairman of Council Salary After deduction for full use of Council supplied vehicle $105,715 Deputy Chairman of Council Salary Representing a differentiation of $4,500 between a Councillor with no committee chair responsibilities or Deputy Chairman responsibilities To be decided Chair of: -     Hearings Committee -     Regional Transport Committee -     Environment and Services Committee -     Regional Planning Committee -     Corporate and Strategic Committee Salary Representing a differentiation of $4,500 between a Councillor with no committee chair responsibilities or Deputy Chairman responsibilities To be decided Elected Members of Council Salary   To be decided   3.      Resolves the level of remuneration for the Chairman of the Maori Committee be set for the 2012/13 financial year at the salary for an elected member of Council without committee chair responsibilities and note that this payment of this salary is not funded from the net Council remuneration pool as advised by the Remuneration Authority. 4.      Resolves that the level of meeting fees and travel allowance paid to members of the Maori Committee remain unchanged at $265 per day and $0.74 per kilometre respectively from 1 July 2012. 5.      Resolves that tangata whenua appointed members of the Maori Committee (excluding the Chairman of the Maori Committee) who are appointed to Plan hearings that are not related to resource consent hearings be remunerated at the rates set out in the applicable Local Government Elected Members Determination for all hearing time, as defined in that determination.

 

 

John Peacock Corporate Accountant

Paul Drury Group Manager Corporate Services

 

Attachment/s

1View

Councillor Remuneration Scenarios

  

Councillor Remuneration Scenarios

Attachment 1

 

Councillor Remuneration

 

 

Wednesday 18 April 2012

SUBJECT: Port of Napier Limited Valuation

 

Reason for Report

1.      The Council currently owns 100% of the Port of Napier Limited (“PONL”) which is valued in the Council’s Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2011 at $120.54 million.

2.      Council policy requires its investment in PONL to be valued every three years by an independent expert in valuing investments of this type.

3.      Deloitte has now valued PONL as an equity investment at between $177.4 and $203.1 million.

4.      The Council now needs to decide what value to adopt for its investment in PONL, confirm that this value will be the “transfer price” at which its shareholding in PONL will be transferred to HBRIC and note the consequential impact of any higher valuation on the investment policy performance targets contained in the Draft LTP2012-2022 as a result of any change in valuation.

Background

5.      Deloitte is commissioned by PONL to undertake every three years, a valuation of the company’s business equity (which is the value of the Council’s shareholding in PONL) in accordance with the terms of its Statement of Corporate Intent.

6.      Deloitte’s previous valuation as at 31 March 2009 placed a value on PONL equity of between $106.4 million and $134.4 million.

7.      The Council resolved in 2009 to adopt a value mid-way in this range, resulting in a value of $120.54 million for its PONL shareholding as at 30 June 2011.

8.      Deloitte’s 2012 valuation of PONL equity is in the range of $177.4 million to $203.1 million.

9.      Attached is PONL’s letter dated 28 March 2012 reporting:

9.1.      Deloitte’s valuation range is $177.4 million to $203.1 million

9.2.      Its Board of Directors recommends the Council adopt a new valuation at the lower end of Deloitte’s range which is $177.4 million

9.3.      Its Board of Directors makes this recommendation because of the “general level of business uncertainty”.

10.    Past practice has been for the Council to revalue its shareholding in PONL every three years on the basis of Deloitte’s expert valuations.

11.    At its meeting on 29 February 2012, the Council resolved to transfer its entire shareholding in PONL to HBRIC at the revalued price determined by Deloitte as at 31 March 2012.

Implications of the PONL Valuation

12.    Increasing the Council’s valuation of its investment in PONL to the recommended $177.4 million will result in:

12.1.   A surplus on revaluation of $56.86 million, (being $177.4 million 2012 valuation less $120.54 million 2009 valuation), which will increase the Council’s equity to the same extent in its current 2011/2012 financial year.

12.2.   Consequential reduction in return on investment performance targets for HBRIC (once the PONL shareholding is transferred from the Council) in the LTP2012-2022, which can be made in the final version of the plan. Subject to confirmation the return on investment performance targets for 2012/2013 will be around 5%.

13.    The Council will also transfer its shareholding to HBRIC at the higher value of $177.4 million in accordance with its resolution at its 29 February 2012 meeting. This means  the Council will now subscribe for and fully pay up 177.4 million $1.00 ordinary shares in HBRIC rather than $120.54 million fully paid $1.00 ordinary shares in HBRIC as previously expected.

14.    HBRIC will accordingly issue 177.4 million $1.00 ordinary shares to pay the Council for the PONL shareholding consistent with this higher valuation.

15.    HBRIC intends to seek advice on the taxation and accounting implications for HBRIC of a higher value for PONL.

Conclusion

16.    Adopting the lower value in the Deloitte range (of $177.4 million) in this instance rather than the mid point of the range as done previously, is a conservative realistic approach to the value of PONL at this time.

Decision Making Process

17.    Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act).  Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

17.1.   Sections 97 and 98 of the Act do not apply as these relate to decisions that significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

17.2.   Sections 83 and 84 covering special consultative procedure do not apply.

17.3.   The decision does not fall within the definition of the Council’s policy on significance.

17.4.   There are no persons affected by this decision.

17.5.   The options considered are to adopt a valuation at the mid point of the valuation range.

17.6.   Section 80 of the Act covering decisions that are inconsistent with an existing policy or plan does not apply.

17.7.   Council can exercise its discretion under Section 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Act and make a decision on this issue without conferring directly with the community or others having given due consideration to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be effected by or have an interest in the decisions to be made.

 

Recommendations That Council: 1.      Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted policy on significance and that Council can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided. 2.      Agrees to revalue its shareholding in PONL from $120.54 million to $177.4 million as recommended by the Board of Directors of PONL and as valued by Deloitte in accordance with the Council’s policy for valuing its shareholding in PONL. 3.      Notes this revaluation will affect the investment policy performance targets contained in the Draft LTP2012-2022, and that changes will be made to the final version of the plan to reflect the impact of the revaluation.     4.      Sets the value at which its 100% shareholding in PONL will be transferred to HBRIC at $177.4 million consistent with its resolution on 29 February 2012 to make the transfer at the revalued price determined by Deloitte as at 31 March 2012. 5.      Notes that HBRIC will issue 177.4 million $1.00 fully paid ordinary shares to the Council in settlement of this transfer. 6.      Notes HBRIC will be seeking advice on the accounting and taxation implications for HBRIC (if any) of the higher valuation at which it acquires PONL.

 

 

Paul Drury Group Manager Corporate Services

Andrew Newman Chief Executive

 

Attachment/s

1View

PONL Letter Dated 28 March 2012

  

PONL Letter Dated 28 March 2012

Attachment 1

 

Wednesday 18 April 2012

SUBJECT: Hawke's Bay Wine Country - Dissolution

 

 

Reason for Report

1.      The reason for this report is to set out the steps involved and the rationale behind the dissolution of the Hawke’s Bay Wine Country Trust.

Background

1.      This Trust was established on 24 April 2007 for the exclusive purpose of holding the Wine Country Intellectual Property which could then be licensed for use by the Hawke’s Bay Tourism Industry Association Incorporation.

2.      A trade mark application was made on 5 July 2007 in the name of the original Trustees and is registered under IP number 771663 with the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (“the Brand”).

3.      The Foundation Trustees were:

·    Wallace Ross Bramwell

·    Claire Elizabeth Hague

·    Hugh Edward Staples Hamilton

·    Andrew Neil Barber

4.      The current Trustees are now:

·    Neil Francis Kirton

·    Hugh Edward staples Hamilton

·    John Lawrence Cocking

·    Charlotte Jane Orr

5.      The principal objects of the Trust (clause 3) are expressed as follows:

(a)   To take up ownership of the HBWC Brand and as the owner, to carry out necessary steps to manage and maintain the brand to its best advantage.

(b)   To ensure that the HBWC Brand is used to support the wide spread development of tourism and economic growth in the Hawke’s Bay region.

            (c)   To ensure that the HBWC Brand delivers a consistent message about what the Hawke’s Bay Region can deliver to visitors, tourists, residents and investors.

            (d)   To strive for continuous international, regional and local recognition of the HBWC brand.

            (e)   To ensure that the HBWC Brand is positioned as the most recognised means of identifying the Hawke’s Bay region across all trading sectors.

6.      The relevant provisions of the Trust for present purposes are:

6.1    Clause 25 which states that:

The Trust shall continue in perpetuity unless the Trustees unanimously resolve that the Trust be wound up whereupon the Trust shall be wound up.

6.2    Clause 26 which states that:

       On the winding of the Trust, the Trust property shall be realised and the net proceeds thereof after payment of all costs, charges and expenses shall be paid or transferred to, [sic] in accordance with the provisions of clause 9 hereof.

 

6.3    Clause 9 which states:

       The Trustees may make grants out of the capital of the Trust or distribute all or part of the Trust property in any financial year until the Trust is wound up as hereinafter provided.  The recipient must be either a member of the general public or a non-profit organisation. The Trustees have the absolute discretion to determine who shall be the recipient, how much will be paid, the conditions of payment and the date(s) of payment.

7.      The Trust was set up as a Charitable Trust but there is no evidence that it was ever registered with the Charities Commission or the Registrar of Incorporated Societies as a Charitable Trust Board. Accordingly on the dissolution of the Trust there is no requirement to notify either office.

8.      It appears that it does not own any assets other than the Intellectual Property in the Wine Country trademark.

9.      Given the decision by the Association and Hawke’s Bay Tourism Association not to utilise that Brand any longer it is appropriate to consider the transfer of the intellectual property and the dissolution of the Trust.

10.    The thinking behind the establishment of the Trust was to keep the Brand protected from the prospect of insolvency of the operating arms of the tourism entities and to manage and maintain the Brand to the best advantage of the Hawke’s Bay Region given that one of the primary objects of the Trust was to support the widespread element of tourism and economic growth in Hawke’s Bay.  It may transpire that at some future point in time, the Brand will be used again.  At any rate, it should be protected in the meantime so as to avoid any individual or competitor organisation acquiring an interest in the Brand.

11.    In terms of ownership of the Brand, there are two possible outcomes given the need to protect the Brand. The first is to form a new Trust which will licence the Brand to Hawke’s Bay Tourism. The second option is to transfer the Brand to Hawke’s Bay Regional Council.

12.    It is recommended that the Brand be transferred to Hawke’s Bay Regional Council for the reasons that:

12.1 HBRC has perpetual succession and a nil or at least extremely low risk of insolvency.

12.2 The new brand currently used by Hawke’s Bay Tourism is held by Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and licensed to Hawke’s Bay Tourism Limited for a period of 20 years.

12.3 The funding provided by HBRC for the Tourism Industry in recent times makes HBRC the appropriate recipient.

12.4 HBRC is best placed to manage and maintain the Brand as part of its funding agreement arrangements with Hawke’s Bay Tourism Limited.

13.    Assuming that the recommendation is adopted, the process of putting this into place is relatively straightforward:

13.1 HBWC Trust assigns the Brand to HBRC for $1.00.

13.2 HBRC licenses the Brand to Hawke’s Bay Tourism Limited based on a royalty payment identical to the licence terms for the current Hawke’s Bay Tourism brand.

13.3 The HBWC Trust is dissolved by unanimous resolution of the Trustees pursuant to clause 25 of the Trust Deed. That resolution can record that there are no net proceeds following assignment of the Brand to HBRC and therefore the distribution provisions of clause 9 do not apply.

13.4 Notice is given to the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand of the change in ownership of the Brand from the Trust to HBRC.

14.    In summary, the documents required are:

14.1 Assignment of Trade Mark.

14.2 Licence Agreement.

14.3 Trustees resolution dissolving the Trust.

14.4 Notice to IPONZ.

Decision Making Process

15.    Council is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act).  Staff have assessed the requirements contained in Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

15.1.    The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

15.2.    The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

15.3.    The decision does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.

15.4.    There are no persons affected by this decision.

15.5.    Options that have been considered include retaining the Trust.

15.6.    The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

15.7.    Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

 

Recommendation That Council: 1.      Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted policy on significance and that Council can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided. 2.      Approves that the Hawke’s Bay Wine Country Brand be transferred from the Hawke’s Bay Wine Country Trust to HBRC. 3.      Approves Council entering into a licence agreement with Hawke’s Bay Tourism for a period of twenty years at a licence fee of $1.00 per annum. 4.      Authorises the Chief Executive to sign all documents to put this resolution into effect.

 

 

Paul Drury Group Manager Corporate Services

Andrew Newman Chief Executive

 

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

Wednesday 18 April 2012

SUBJECT: Leasehold Land Freeholding Progress

 

Reason for Report

1.      This report has been prepared to provide Council with an update on the freeholding incentives and to also provide some additional suggestions to facilitate cross-lease freeholding for Council’s consideration.

Freeholding Progress

2.      Councillors are well aware of the history of the leasehold land portfolio and the reasoning for approving the discount of either 10% or 17.5% off the lessor’s interest amount which was available on all freeholdings completed by 30 June 2012.

3.      Following Council’s approval of the discount on 28 July 2011, a newsletter was sent to all lessees advising of the freeholding incentives and in addition, staff manned a shop at Marewa for lessees to discuss freeholding. A total of 53 lessees visited the shop, mainly cross lease lessees. A further newsletter was sent out last month.

4.      Since July 2011 staff have dealt with numerous inquiries and have processed 147 valuation requests. To date, 119 lessees on 101 property sites have freeholded and Council has given $1.7 million of discounts.

5.      It should be noted that due to the time given to lessees to deliberate on the freeholding price and to obtain finance, the complete freeholding process can take up to five months.  There are 34 freeholdings in process at the current time and these will be cleared by 30 June 2012.

6.      The following tables show the comparison of freeholding between single sites and cross lease properties.

Table 1:  Number of Lessees
			Single Sites	Cross Lease Sites	TOTAL
1/07/2011	Number of lessees		557	470	1,027
	Number of lessees
	who have freeholded
	July 2011 - 31 March 2012		-89	-30	-119
31/03/2012	Remaining lessees		468	440	908

 

Table 2:  Number of Property Sites
			Single Sites	Cross Lease Sites	TOTAL	Lessors’ Interest
1/07/2011	Number of property sites		557	168	725	$79,800,000
	Freeholded		-89	-12	-101	-$9,415,586
	Discount					-$1,711,808
31/03/2012	Remaining sites		468	156	624	$68,672,606

 

Cross Lease Properties

7.      As at 1 July 2011 there were 470 lessee units occupying 168 property sites. The lessees residing in the units are predominantly elderly with others in a landlord/tenant situation.

8.      Cross leasing of the residential land for in-fill housing was created as an economic process in comparison with subdividing individual sections.  The occupiers of a cross lease property have shares in the total land area and do not occupy specific square metres. On a cross-lease leasehold property the lessees are subject to a Head Lease which is aligned to the Certificate of Title of the land.

9.      To transfer the ownership of the fee simple in the land on the cross lease Certificate of Title requires all the lessees or their nominees to freehold which would allow the Head Lease to be cancelled.

Options to Enable Freeholding of a Cross Lease Property

10.    Cross lessees that have freeholded since July 2011 total 30.  In a number of instances there have been at least one lessee unable to, or not wishing to, freehold on a cross lease property and staff have dealt with many inquiries on partial freeholding of these sections.  Council staff have discussed the following options with cross lessees.

10.1     Subdivision is an option where the lessee wanting to freehold considers partitioning off a parcel of land, with the other lessees’ consent, by creating a separate Certificate of Title which then can be freeholded. The disadvantages are the cost of subdivision and creation of new leases as well as the movement in land values due to the subdivision. The remaining lessees are not disadvantaged due to subdivision since the Council has resolved to retain the same lease terms until the expiry of the original Head Lease.  The subdivision process is set out in Attachment 1.

10.2     Because the Council can freehold to the lessee or their nominee, offspring or future beneficiaries of an estate can be a source of funding to freehold the land of an elderly lessee at the discounted price.  The advantage is that upon the demise of the lessee, the executors can settle the estate more easily if the property is in a freehold state.

10.3     Furthermore, one lessee can be nominated to provide the freeholding funds for another lessee and replacing the Council as landlord.  The Head Lease is replaced by a similar worded contract between lessee and landlord which means the lessee is only changing the name of the payee for the same rent.  The contract would have the purchase price clause for when the lessee no longer resides at the property, the unit is marketed for sale as a freehold property and from the sales proceeds, the landlord receives the land purchase price which is inflation adjusted.

Decision Making Process

11.    Council is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act).  Staff have assessed the requirements contained in Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

11.1    The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

11.2    The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

11.3    The decision does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.

11.4    The decisions requested in this paper affect Council’s lessees of Napier leasehold property.

11.5    The options in this paper are for Council to consider further assistance to lessees for the freeholding process or to limit their assistance to the discounts provided in the Council resolutions on 28 July 2011.

11.6    The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

11.7    Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

 

Recommendations That Council: 1.      Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted policy on significance and that Council can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided. 2.      Approves that a letter be sent to all cross lessees of Napier leasehold property providing information on options that can be considered to facilitate cross lease freeholding.  One of these options will be for subdivision of the cross lease property and that in order to facilitate the subdivision process for cross lessee properties, Council will provide the following concessions. 2.1    Council will cover the legal costs to create the new leases affected by the subdivision and will cover the valuation fees on the new leases when drawn up. 2.2    That subsequent to the subdivision being finalised, the freeholding price will be calculated using the valuations prior to the subdivision being affected. 2.3    To acknowledge that the subdivision process could take some time to investigate and complete, the discounts to freehold resolved by Council on 28 July 2011 will continue to be available to cross lessees who commence the process of subdivision prior to 30 June 2012.

 

 

John Keenan Revenue Accountant

Paul Drury Group Manager Corporate Services

 

Attachment/s

1View

Subdivision Option on Cross Lease Leasehold Sections

  

Subdivision Option on Cross Lease Leasehold Sections

Attachment 1

 

 

SUBDIVISION OPTION ON

CROSS LEASE LEASEHOLD SECTIONS

 

 

Since 1990, lessees on cross lease leasehold sections have had the option to subdivide and then freehold the partitioned portion of land.

 

To date not one lessee has continued the process to actually subdivide a cross lease section, although some have investigated the costs.

 

Set out below are the steps to be followed to ensure that the subdivision process has been carefully considered before the lessee has to incur costs.

 

Once a lessee on a cross lease leasehold section has approached all lessee neighbours to gain agreement to freehold and not all cross lessees are willing or able to freehold, then a subdivision can be considered.

 

Step 1 – Napier City Council

 

Determine from the Napier City Council if a subdivision is possible of the particular section.  Due to the physical nature of the section and adjoining dwellings, the freeholding option may not be feasible.

 

Limitations:

 

Existing section size and shape may prevent a subdivision.   For example, subdividing one of three dwelling units on 800 square metre section may not be possible.

 

The building configuration and shared rooflines of the cross lease units may not meet the subdivision requirements.  For example, the requirement of boundary firewalls from the ground to the roof between conjoined units would be the main reason for not subdividing.

 

All underground infrastructure under a subdivided unit servicing another unit would have to be rerouted.  For example, stormwater and waste water from one unit cannot be piped across another subdivided unit or separate section.

 

Driveway access especially to a middle unit of a length of three or more units would have to be subject to a Right of Way Easement.

 

Separate water reticulation system to the subdivided section would have to be connected.

 

Step 2 – Neighbours

 

If the subdivision is practical then the lessees promoting the subdivision should again approach and gain acceptance from the neighbouring lessees on the subdivision proposal.  Acceptance of the planned location of the survey pegs is essential.

 

The promoting lessee, assisted by Council staff, would remind the neighbours that their current rent would not be increased due to the subdivision, although their land area and lease documentation would be changed.  The Council resolved in 2009 not to increase the rent on remaining lessees where a lessee contemplates subdivision to effect a freeholding.

 

A Flat Lease Agreement exists for all cross lease properties, whether leasehold or freehold, which is binding on all unit owners to provide continuity on property improvements, colour schemes, access, the right to have pets, and even the behaviour of neighbours.

 

If a cross lease unit is subdivided from another or others units, the Flat Lease Agreement between the unit owners will no longer apply to the subdivided unit.  The neighbours should be made aware of this situation.

 

Step 3 – Costs

 

If the subdivision is acceptable, the promoting lessee should now consider the costs.

 

The Napier City Council charges for consent fees, disbursements and other fees is estimated at $1,500 upwards.  The cost of a separate water connection from the road would vary according to the distance to the subdivided section from the road.

 

Surveying costs to peg out the new area, draw the subdivision plans and register the Certificate of Titles are estimated at $7,000 including legal and Land Information New Zealand costs.

 

Legal costs to create new leases for two new properties to replace the existing Head

Lease on the cross lease section are estimated at $1,500.

 

Valuation fees for the lease valuation process on the new leases would be up to $1,000.

 

For the conjoined units, the cost of the boundary firewalls would vary depending upon the complexity of the subdivision.

 

If there is a requirement to reroute the underground infrastructure, these costs would also vary.

 

Step 4 – Market Value

 

Advice is required from a registered valuer on the movement of land values as a result of  the subdivision.  The lessee must be aware that the valuers are bound to provide freeholding valuations under the Hawke’s Bay Endowment Land Empowering Act 2002.

 

In most cases the subdivision would result in higher land values.  Therefore to encourage subdivision as a method of cross leases being able to be freeholded and to provide an equitable solution, Council would need to undertake to continue with freeholding at the valuations prior to the subdivision.

 

Step 5 – Timing

 

As this process could take some time to investigate and complete, Council may wish to consider extending the discount available to cross lessees who commence the process of subdivision prior to 30 June 2012 to enable completion of the subdivision.

 

Wednesday 18 April 2012

SUBJECT:  April 2012 Work Plan - Looking Forward

 

Reason for Report

1.      This report is provided in order to update Councillors about significant work activities under way over the next month in each area of Council.

 

Group	Area of Activity	Activity Status Update
Asset Management	·    Asset Management Plan reviews	Reviews of Asset Management Plans substantially complete for HPFCS and UTTS. Peer reviews and audit completed.  Some modification required to align AMP’s with LTP financials and levels of service.  To be completed by 30 June 2012.
	·    Biosecurity	Regional Pest Management Strategy and Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Strategy Hearing held 15 February 2012.  Council adopted Hearings Panel recommendations 29 Feb.  One reference has been made to the Environment Court.  Awaiting advice from Environment Court with regard to process to achieve resolution.
	·    Land Management	A number of strategies to improve effectiveness of Council land management investment have been developed and included in the LTP 2012-22.  An operational plan is being developed and will be presented for Council consideration in May 2012.
	·    CHB District Council Wastewater project	Resource consent application notified 28 January 2012, submissions closed 29 February. CHBDC currently considering alternative option.
	·    Mahia Beach wastewater project	Staff working with WDC, their consultants and other stakeholders on detailed design issues and catchment planning associated with the Whangawehi catchment as required by the resource consent conditions. Legal Agreement between WDC and HBRC regarding use of the land expected to be finalised by end April.
	·    Infrastructure disaster insurance	A review of infrastructure disaster insurance arrangements is underway.  An initial report to Council is planned for May 2012, to provide direction so that insurance negotiations for the 2012/13 year can be initiated.
Resource Management	·    Appeal mediation processes underway for                                       ·   Large Consent processes/ applications	Twyford Court appointed mediation held on 2 November, attended by the appellants (Watering Society) HBRC, Fish and Game, DOC, and Te Taiwhenua of Heretaunga. Appellants advised that a report is being prepared for them by Aqualinc, but will not be ready until next year. Appellants will advise the Court before April 2012 if they intend to progress the appeals. AFFCO Further work and discussion is still ongoing, further mediation dates to be set by Court if required. Mexted & Williams Mexted et al have proposed a reduced no of lots as a solution to resolve the appeal. This is awaiting a response from the appellants. If not accepted this will go to appeal.   NCC BTF plant No appeals accepted or received by the Court to date.   Bridgeman Decision to grant consent issued 5/4/12. CHBDC waste water Application on hold awaiting decision from applicant to proceed. Poukawa Discussions ongoing with applicants and stakeholders pre notification decision, notification likely April/May 2012
Resource Management	·    Science Activities	Groundwater Staff continue to work closely the planning team on policy development for water allocation and water quality for the Tukituki plan change. Also work has completed on groundwater model scenarios for the water storage project. New monitoring wells are being drilled in the Esk Valley to establish monitoring sites in this area. Staff are continuing working closely with the consents team on draft consent application for Apache Oil drilling consent applications. Council is expecting consents to be lodge in March. Staff are also working with consents team with renewals for the Hastings District Council water supply wells. Hydrology Allocation modelling for plan change and storage project still progressing. Back editing work underway. Mohaka concurrent gauging started. NIWA contracted to back edit Glenfalls and Raupunga flow records. All sites performed well during the recent cyclone Daphne with only Berry Road being lost to floods. An appropriate new sight is being sought. Ecology Work still to progress on the Ngaruroro with weather conditions unsuitable for aerial surveys over summer 2011/12. Work to resume on the Ngaruroro summer 2012/13.
Strategic Development	·    Land and Water Management Strategy	Strategy implementation to be ongoing, including via 2012-22 LTP preparation.
	·    Plan Change for freshwater management in Tukituki River catchment	Ongoing. Technical reports being used to develop the water allocation framework. Stakeholder engagement as per adoption by Council in February.
	·    Rivermouth Hazard Areas in proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan (Variation 1)	Schedule 1 RMA process. Officers’ report being prepared. Hearing to be scheduled May 2012.
	·    Onsite Wastewater change (Change 3 + Variation 3)	Schedule 1 RMA process Officer’s report being prepared. Hearing scheduled 19-20 April 2012.
	·    RPS Change to incorporate HPUDS and wider infrastructure matters (Change 4)	Change 4 (Managing the Built Environment) publicly notified 7 December 2011.  45 submissions received. Further submissions to be invited April 2012.  Hearing by end of 2012.
Strategic Development	Ÿ    Taharua Strategy and plan change.	Ongoing. Broadened scope to cover whole Mohaka River catchment.  Preliminary stakeholder engagement commenced with wider Mohaka River interests.  Further liaison with Taharua Stakeholder Group on options.
	Ÿ    Proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan	Ongoing. Environment Court to ratify settlement of all appeals in April.  RCEP to be approved by Council, then referred to Minister of Conservation for approval of provisions relating to coastal marine area.
	Ÿ    Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy (HPUDS)	Ongoing implementation as it relates to other actions where HBRC is a lead agency or a partner agency via HPUDS Working Group.
	Ÿ    Regional Land Transport Programme and Regional Land Transport Strategy.	The projects in the Regional Land Transport Programme have been confirmed by the Regional Transport Committee. This Programme will form part of the Regional Land Transport Strategy that will go out for public consultation in late April 2012.
	Ÿ    Tech NZ R&D funding as part of the Regional Business Partner partnership with HB Chamber of Commerce	Ongoing $1,975,899 distributed to 27 companies.
	Ÿ    Strategic Farming Initiative	Pan Sector cluster meeting is planned for April and will focus on terms of reference and draft strategy and work programme.
	Ÿ    Massey Strategic Relationship	Projects ongoing.
Corporate Services	·    Close off for submissions to draft LTP.	10 May 2012.
	·    Assessment of selling cash flows from Napier leasehold land.	To be undertaken in August 2012.
	·    New website go live date.	Late May/early June 2012.
External Relations	·    Freshwater Governance and Management – Collaborative sector approach to Implementation of NPS	Paper Group presented to Land and Water Forum on behalf of Regional Sector Group. Awaiting release of draft report from LAWF.
	·    Training of Treaty claimant representatives on Regional Planning Committee	First meeting and training held April 10th. Second meeting (ALL Committee members) 9 May Training – 28 May
External Relations	·    Long Term Plan	Coordination of public consultation: HBRC Open Day 17 April CHB Shop – 52 Ruataniwha St, Waipukurau 19 April Wairoa Shop – Gaiety Theatre, Marine parade, Wairoa – 26 April Other presentations – upon request
	·    Community engagement / environmental education	Planning underway for Home & Garden Show (May at PGA). Theme= Clean heating
	·    HeatSmart	Launch of “Dry Wood” Scheme – May Extension of $700 HBRC grant to members of Home Heating Assn.
Operations/ Water Group	·    Ruataniwha Water storage	Work over the next month involves: ·    Analysing draft Final Project Description document and feedback to Engineering consultants. ·    Review all environmental and non science reports due for April and provide feedback to consultants. ·    Continue with Nutrient and Mitigation modelling works. ·    Stakeholder, leadership and landowner meetings to host.
	·    Cycleways	·    Finalise  detail with HDC for remaining Craggy Range section of trail of the Landscapes trail. ·    Input into final detail for Taipo and Pandora sections of the Water trail. ·    Continue with construction of Ngatarawa and Roys hill section of trail of Winery trail.
	·    Ngaruroro Water storage project	Complete and lodge MAF IAF application for on-farm economic study..
CE’s Office	Ÿ    Represent Regional Sector on Land and Water Forum “Small Group”	Draft recommendations on limit setting and collaborative governance are due to be delivered to Government in April.
	Ÿ    Treaty Settlements –Claimant Groups	Inaugural meeting of the Regional Planning Committee held 10 April was attended by Minister for Treaty Settlements
	Ÿ    Commence work with TLA CEs on Study of Local Government Efficiency and Effectiveness	Terms of Reference for the study have been finalised. Mayoral meeting on 5 April confirmed HBRC to fund and manage. Independent study leader currently being sought. Detailed process and timeframes to be finalised by 30 April.
CE’s Office	Ÿ Ruataniwha Water Storage	Ongoing oversight. Meetings with MAF and ECAN scheduled and procurement of financial advisory services under way. Detailed work on what may happen post feasibility under way.
	Ÿ HB Regional Investment Company establishment	Work under way on draft Statement of Intent needs to reflect final LTP
	Ÿ Hill Country Afforestation Proposal	Further oversight of business plan under way.
	Ÿ    Continue work with Regional Sector CEs at Horizons and Greater Wellington plus Government Department CEs as appropriate on southern North Island partnership	Ongoing Initial due diligence due end of April.
	Ÿ    Shared Services	Ongoing consideration of the findings of the Shared Services report, and discussions with Hawke’s Bay TAs and Horizons Regional Council as appropriate.
	Ÿ    Continue involvement with Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Peak Group for Implementation of the ETS	Ongoing
	Ÿ    Advisory Committee on Official Statistics	Ongoing

 

Decision Making Process

2.      Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act).  Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

 

Recommendation 1.      That Council receives the March 2012 Work Plan Looking Forward report.

 

 

Mike Adye Group Manager Asset Management	Helen Codlin Group Manager Strategic Development
Paul Drury Group Manager Corporate Services	Graeme Hansen Group Manager Water Initiatives
Liz Lambert Group Manager External Relations	Iain Maxwell Group Manager Resource Management
Andrew Newman Chief Executive

 

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.